Monday, October 31, 2016

It is worth a repeat here in part because it is fun to laugh at the overly but sincerely superstitious but also because it underlines why we must not allow the crazy right wing evangelicals who support Trump to create an insane theocracy in place of our democracy.

If you think this is a little bit of scare-mongering on my part, I would encourage you to follow sites like Right Wing Watch which documents the crazy belief systems of what used to be the fringe right but is now all too often mainstream right, as the right moved to the political extreme.

There is plenty of this same kind of promotion of belief in demons, and a promotion of the end days with Trump as God's chosen chaos candidate.
These are people who are enthusiastically looking for the end of the world, including in any kind of fiery conflagration such as nuclear war.
What these people believe should concern us all, because they wield very real political influence and power.

It was the prominent Christian media source Charisma that seven years ago carried the article on demonic Halloween candy is now carrying this article promoting Trump for chaos. So there is a serious connection here apart from the entertainment value. If you can't stomach watching the video below, this description of the book by the main speaker below should tell you what you need to know. And yes the 'Cyrus' reference is not biblical, it pertains to Miley Cyrus and her popular music Wrecking Ball. The unintended mental image of Trump "twerking" was so far the most entertaining moment of my day.

Known for his prophetic words about how presidential candidate Donald Trump is a “wrecking ball to the spirit of political correctness” or how Trump has a “Cyrus” anointing to be a strategic voice in this urgent hour, Dr. Lance Wallnau candidly presents the supernatural story and strategy of Donald Trump being God’s Chaos Candidate.

From the Christian media Charisma.Donald Trump Is God's Chaos Candidate

Friday, October 30, 2009

A Creepy Trick, No Treats, for Halloween

"For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."MacBeth, act IV scene 1, 1623William Shakespeare
Kimberly
Daniels wrote about Halloween Candy for Pat Robertson's Christian
Broadcasting Network web site where it drew the attention and ridicule
from sources across the Internet, including the Huffington Post and MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Daniels
personifies that brand of religion that amounts to Christian
superstition. It links to the crazy that is epitomized by extreme
fundamentalists. It holds little similarity to what most people think of
as conventional religious faith or spirituality, and holds more in
common with Grimm's Fairy Tales, seances by adolescents at slumber
parties, and ghost stories told at camp in the dark in the woods around a
camp fire before going to sleep in a tent, (shining a flashlight up
your nose, optional).

Daniels' version of Halloween is as
different from real Wicca and modern Paganism as the fictional highly
commercialized figure of a red-suited, white bearded fat old man with
flying reindeer we think of as Santa Clause differs from the Biblical
account of the birth of Christ at Christmas.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

So
what we now know is that Comey delivered this letter, not because the
FBI uncovered some new bombshell, but because he was under a legal
obligation to do so. We also know that the emails were not from Clinton.
Additionally, the AP reports that the emails “did not come from her private server.”

Despite
the explosiveness of the initial headlines regarding this letter, the
actual substance of the story appears to be shrinking with each new
revelation.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

The Republican nominee finds himself behind in both national and Florida statewide polls, down six and two respectively, according to the Real Clear Politics average.

“I think we’re going to have a little Brexit coming up in November,” he said.

Brexit has not been good for the UK now, and it is looking as if the predictions of a large consensus of economists is coming true, that it will hurt the economy in the UK in the future. In particular there is an expected loss of jobs as foreign investment, notably Japanese capital, moves to the mainland of Europe.

As the following news article from Reuters notes, there are 2 MILLION jobs involved in the projected move, and a potential loss affecting up to 12% of the UK economy. That kind of move hurts, it can lead to a significant recession or even depression, and it will continue to have ripples for global economies, including our own.

An example of how Brexit has affected a company with operations in the UK but based here in the US, from the Irish Times:

Brexit turmoil sees Whirlpool cut annual profit forecast

Appliance giant hurt by sluggish US sales and Brexit-inspired uncertainty in UK

Whirlpool
cut its annual profit forecast after results fell well short of
estimates in the third quarter, hurt by sluggish sales in the US and
Brexit-inspired turmoil in the UK.
...The UK’s vote to leave the European Union – and subsequent impact on the pound – also took a toll on results, the Benton Harbor, Michigan-based company said.

Here's what the British Chamber of Commerce had to say last month about how Brexit affected the UK, from the Guardian:

British Chambers of Commerce more than halves GDP growth prediction for next year to 1%, citing post-referendum uncertainty
Britain’s economy will grind to a near standstill over the coming
months as post-referendum uncertainty triggers a slump in business
investment, a leading business group has warned as it slashed its growth
forecasts.
In its first set of forecasts since the vote to leave the EU, the
British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) on Monday more than halved its GDP
growth prediction for next year from 2.3% to 1.0%. That would mark the
worst economic performance since 2009, when the UK was emerging from a
deep recession sparked by the global financial crisis.

Much as the low-education pro-Trump dummies who hate globalism would love to see less of it, here's a story from Reuters back in May before the actual Brexit vote.

If Britain votes to
leave the European Union in June, some U.S. banks could give up parts of
their business in the bloc altogether.The scenarios being studied by
taskforces at U.S. banks underscore the extent to which the London
operations of non-European banks are linked to business on the
continent.In particular
focus are the banks' market operations, as trading of most European
securities is regulated at the EU level but conducted by many investment
banks mainly out of London.The
five largest U.S. banks employ 40,000 people in London, more than in
the rest of Europe combined, taking advantage of the EU "passporting"
regime that allows them to offer services across the bloc out of their
British hubs.

Those businesses in the UK shut down, it means not ONLY the loss of 40,000 jobs in London, it will mean the loss of jobs here too.

Trump was notorious in his very public ignorance of Brexit when he was visiting Scotland. He appears to have continued his ignorance late into the campaign.

Banks preparing to leave UK over Brexit, says banking body chief executiveBig international
banks are preparing to move some of their operations out of Britain in
early 2017 due to the uncertainty over the country's future relationship
with the European Union, a top banking official said.Writing
in the Observer newspaper, Anthony Browne, the chief executive of lobby
group the British Bankers' Association, said the public and political
debate was "taking us in the wrong direction" and businesses could not
wait until the last minute."Most
international banks now have project teams working out which operations
they need to move to ensure they can continue serving customers, the
date by which this must happen, and how best to do it," said Browne. "Their hands are quivering over the
relocate button. Many smaller banks plan to start relocations before
Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of
next year."Many of the
world's major banks have their European headquarters in Britain, where
the financial sector employs more than two million people and makes up
almost 12 percent of the economy.

We've heard Donald Trump claim that Hillary shouldn't be president because Bill Clinton had infidelities. To be specific, Trump claims Bill Clinton was a sexual predator, the worst in the history of the presidency. Specifically per the AP, Trump said this

"But Bill Clinton has sexually assaulted innocent women and Hillary Clinton was attacking those women viciously."
"Bill Clinton was the worst abuser of women to ever sit in the Oval Office. He was a predator,"

There is no credible evidence that Hillary ever attacked these women, much less viciously. She did stand by Bill through rough going, but that is arguably evidence commitment to traditional marriage, not of abuse of anyone else.

But as to the claims against Bill Clinton, I would argue that as sexual escapades in the White House go, he's been among the less egregious, not the worst. More on that below, but first an examination of the allegations against "President Bubba".

To get specific, Bill Clinton had five formal allegations of sexual misconduct; the claims of Juanita Broadderick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones, have not been established. They exist as accusations of dubious authenticity, given Broadderick and Willey both testified under oath that Clinton never made unwanted advances. Further Willey had a history of false accusations, which included telling a boyfriend she was pregnant, when she was not, and then claiming a miscarriage that she didn't have. Linda Tripp of Monica Lewinsky scandal fame claimed it was Willey who was obsessed from day 1 with seducing the President.

Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky both appeared to have had some kind of sexual relationships but not apparently coitus with Lewinsky. Bill Clinton admitted to a one time sexual relationship with Flowers.

Gennifer Flowers used her notoriety for profit, to the tune of $500,000. All of the women who have appeared with Donald Trump prior to his second debate, both alleged victims of Bill Clinton, and a very questionable rape victim, were paid to do so, to the tune of $2,5000 each, and their stories conflict with prior accounts of events, including Grand Jury testimony under oath.

Hillary has also been accused of laughing at the alleged victim of a rape case, presumably thereby abusing HER, where she had no option out of defending the accused rapist, whom she got a plea deal. She did laugh at the botched case of the prosecution, and she was recorded laughing at the unreliability of polygraph testing, which showed the accused rapist to be innocent. But she did NOT laugh at the victim. Further complicating the rape case, the 12 year old victim had consensual sex with a 15 year old boy prior to the accused rape, and had previously made false accusations of bodily attacks.

Hillary Clinton tried to get out of defending her client, but she got a good outcome for her client (a plea deal, not an acquittal) because he passed a polygraph test, and because of lack of evidence and mishandling of evidence by the prosecution. It was her duty as a defense attorney to do so; she did her job. The victim previously supported the defense role of Hillary before it became profitable to object to her.

In contrast so far as can be established, there are more women who have credibly come forward to make accusations against Trump, and NONE of them have been paid to do so, and none of them have been credibly contradicted by others in defense of Trump, except by Trump himself who makes a highly suspect denial, much less contradicted themselves.

In contrast Bill Clinton, who turned 70 this past August, has had no sex scandals since Monica Lewinsky back in the 1990s. Trump, who also turned 70 this past June, has had sex scandals pretty much right up until he decided to run for President, which he announced in 2015. These include a law suit for multiple violent rapes of a 13 year old, to other accusations of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Trump's accusations are distinctive in how consistently they are not consensual - although he has had consensual affairs as well. He admits to having cheated on Ivana, his first wife, with Marla Maples, his second wife, and to having cheated on Maples with multiple women, including his third wife. He has been recorded multiple times admitting to have at least attempted to cheat on Melania Trump his third wife.

Putting Bill Clinton's conduct in context, and at the same time putting the claims that Hillary Clinton jeopardized the security of the country with her email problems, I offer you a few examples of bad presidential conduct. Richard Nixon - yes, Tricky Dicky - had an ongoing affair with a Communist Chinese woman with close ties to Chinese Generals. MI-6 recorded his sex-capades and head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover got his own dirt on Dick, and used it to blackmail him. Trump campaign staffer and key adviser to Donald Trump was in the Nixon White House and is one of those who confirm the story. Both JFK and Gerald Ford had affairs with an East German Communist spy, by the name of Ellen Rometsch, with both being allegedly blackmailed, again by J. Edgar Hoover. Ford was not president at the time, but allegedly was blackmailed for information from the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. JFK was far more of a sexual predator and serial philanderer than Bill Clinton, including alleged sexual impropriety with interns. Ronald Reagan had a credible accusation of rape while president as well - but that was while he was Screen Actors Guild president, not US president.

Arguably black mail of the president is a far greater danger to the security of the United States than a private email server with very low level information on it. And if one takes a look at the totality of presidential history when it comes to inappropriate sexual conduct, there are few who pass scrutiny. George Washington has been credibly accused of having a long term sexual relationship with a slave named Venus and a speculative one with a certain Mrs. Fairfax. Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemmings has been established by DNA evidence, and possibly began when she was as young as 16. This is not unique to recent presidents. The founding fathers had more than their fair share of bastards.

Looking at presidents from WW II forward, the only apparent cases where there were no credible accusations of infidelity or sexual misconduct, before, during or after their presidency were Barack Obama, Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman. Both Bushes appear to have had affairs - more than one, and Dubya was accused of rape. Looking back before WW II across the 19th century, there not only heterosexual affairs, some with presidential bastard offspring, there were rumors of homosexual relationships attributed (at different times in history) to both presidents Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan.

So, no, Bill Clinton is FAR from the worst president in terms of keeping himself safely in his pants, and he seems considerably less bad in that regard than the conduct of Donald Trump, past and recent past if not present. That is IF you look at factual histories of our presidents and their most private conduct. Just a word to the wise, before you take a look at our unsanitized history - you will NOT be able to look at Mount Rushmore, or stamps with presidents on them, or money, quite the same way again afterwards.

Monday, October 24, 2016

The Trump campaign, and to a lesser extent, Republicans, has and have been willing to use the information provided by WikiLeaks. To be clear, when WikiLeaks first started it was embarrassing to the Republicans and I didn't speak out against it. That was in part because it looked like it was some disaffected member of the US military spilling certain embarrassing details, but details which weren't really state secrets.

However, it has now become clear that WikiLeaks is being fed by a foreign government and by a government which is not friendly to the US, our strategic interests or even to democratic rule (namely, Russia and it's dictator Vladimr Putin).

This isn't a party issue, this isn't a Dem/Republican issue, this is a national security issue. What if the Russians find a way to tap into polling machines? (something which is actively being investigated and hopefully defended against) What if the Russians find out actual secrets, plans of the US? Would that be sufficiently a problem? For Republicans not to repudiate Russia and to as a result, not walk away from the intelligence being provided by Russian intelligence services, is appalling. Just like a charitable contribution from a pedophile, you dismiss the gift when given under unethical circumstances. I would feel this way if this were stuff about Trump (or Cruz or Bush) if I was told it came from some foreign entity (like say, Israel). I would, like a good juror, ignore the information.

I think the press really OUGHT to walk away from it but they may not and as the fifth estate, I believe they ultimately have a duty to report the news of the leak if not the details, but members of government?? Whether it's current or prospective, they have a duty to disavow the act and the benefits of the act. Not doing so puts party before country, it abrogates the DUTY they swore to uphold, namely defending our constitution against foreign enemies and allowing a foreign government to intrude on our political process is failing to defend our democratic process. The government of Russia broke our laws, broke international laws, and engaged in espionage against our very likely future President, if not now, then when do you object?

As far as Russia goes, this country MUST push back on Russia. It needs to assault their operational systems and put some scare into Putin. If that constitutes clandestinely aiding the Ukrainians through direct transfers of money and/or military hardware, so be it. If that means disrupting their pipelines, so be it. If that means providing Europe with natural gas supplies and building pipelines to do so, so be it. You cannot let a foreign actor attack your IT infrastructure without consequence and I find it APPALLING that Republicans, not all, but many, not only don't agree, but are agreeing to be the willing fool for Putin.

It would seem to me, and I would argue to most reasonable people, that what someone says when they have nothing to gain - or lose - is the more sincere.
Which puts the lie to Trump's current campaign positions, or at the very least would argue he has no sincerely or deeply held beliefs other than wanting to advance himself.

Back in a prior campaign, Howard Dean was called a flip flopper for changing his positions, to damaging effect. He had fewer of those positions than Trump has.

I have long harbored the secret suspicion that Trump is simply appealing to those who like the vulgarity of reality television, the same crowd the ancient Romans appealed to with bread and circuses displaying horrific violence in the name of entertainment. On some level, the modern voters must know that Trump is not real, at the same time they praise him for speaking 'truth'.

I actually had a debate on line where some moronic Trump supporter tried to argue that reality tv was powerful real-world stuff, and that Trump was demonstrating some sort of alpha prowess and potency that people would understand made Trump powerful. His argument was based on the notion that "tapping ass" (pardon the crudity) created some sort of jock-status back in high school. This moron had a difficult time grasping the notion that high school locker rooms were not the real world either.

However that might offer a glimpse into the emotional thinking that has made Trump popular primarily among lower educated and less evolved white males to the exclusion of other demographics. Trump voters are not only as a group less educated, but have never really gotten beyond that level of thinking and wishing.

In that context it will be interesting to see how well a belief in Trump's misogynist, homophobic, Islamophobic positions will survive seeing Trump's real world words from his past. What this should challenge is if wishful thinking will win or lose against a dose of reality. The other side is running similar campaigns against Hillary, but they are using more deceptive editing methods to misrepresent her past words.

I particularly love to laugh at the end times crazies and the evangelicals who claim Trump is "God's chaos candidate".
I have yet to see any credible evidence other than evil wishful thinking that any divine entity is seeking Chaos.

This is the man who insists, without any evidence for it, that he is smarter than all the generals and admirals who are professional military experts.
You have to be pretty foolish and gullible to believe anything relating to foreign policy, war, our military, or to patriotism that this man says.

I have long contended that unless and until we have consensus by proof of what is and is not factual, we won't have any functional unity. I don't want to see us continue to become increasingly dysfunctional as a nation.

I fact checked the graphic below after finding it on the FB page of someone who expressed an alarming degree of hatred for Hillary. I am confident that the reasons this person has for his emotions are ALL as false as the image below, which I took from his FB page.

Images like this keep popping up on right wing posts on social media.
It is false. But it goes a long way towards explaining the poorly informed right wing response of boos when Hillary CORRECTLY stated her FACTUAL position on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- a document she knows well and understands thoroughly.

We have a serious problem with gun violence; our rates are 25 times higher, especially gun violence involving either child victims and/or child shooters. So long as one side of the issue refuses to be factually accurate, we can't do anything to successfully resolve this public health issue.

Here is what is wrong with the above image; it is entirely FAKE. Because conservatives LIE when the facts are not on their side; and this is one more example of it.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explicitly
stated her plans to "shut down" the National Rifle Association and
expressed hope at banning handguns in an interview with The Des Moines Register last summer. At least, that’s according to a viral image that first cropped up on ananti-Clinton Tumblr blog and has beenshared widely on Facebook.
"I will get the NRA shut down for good if I become president. If we
can ban handguns, we will do it," the post quotes Clinton as telling the
Register on Aug. 8, 2015.But here’s the thing: The quote is wholly fabricated. Clinton was never quoted in the Register making that statement, and it appears she has not made such a statement anywhere else.
Clinton campaigned heavily in Iowa throughout the summer and fall of 2015, and Register
reporters and the paper’s editorial board interviewed her several
times. But she was not in Iowa on Aug. 8, when she allegedly made the
statement. Clinton’s first visit to Iowa in the month of August occurred
on Aug. 14, followed by public events on Aug. 15 and Aug. 26.
A review of the Register’s archives show Clinton was neither interviewed nor quoted directly on Aug. 8 or in the days immediately following.
Clinton did make several statements regarding gun control on the Iowa campaign trail that were covered by the Register.
In all of them, she laid out an agenda that calls for broader
background-check requirements, including sales at gun shows, as well
as stronger measures to prevent gun purchases by domestic abusers and
people with serious mental health problems.
"I'm going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better than that,"Clinton said in Iowa in July.
"A majority of Americans and a majority of gun owners agree with
universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of domestic
abusers and people who are mentally unstable and even terrorists."On Aug. 26 in Ankeny, she responded to the on-air murders of a news crew in Virginia:
"We've got to do something. It's a very difficult political issue.
But we are smart enough, compassionate enough to balance legitimate
Second Amendment rights concerns with preventive measures and control
measures, so whatever motivated this murderer ... we will not see more
needless, senseless deaths," she said.
She went on, "If guns weren't so readily available, if we had
universal background checks, if we could put some time out between the
person who got fired, or domestic abuse, or whatever other motivation
... maybe we could prevent this kind of carnage."On Oct. 6, she described her views again,
in response to a mass shooting in Oregon: "I feel like this is
unfinished business in our country, and I am very determined that we are
going to try to bring some sanity back, so that people's Second
Amendment rights are protected — but they are not absolute, the way the
NRA wants them to be," Clinton said at an event in Davenport. "There are
common-sense ways to make sure people are not using guns to commit mass
murders."
Gun control came up again at an event in Sioux City on Dec. 4,
after the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif. At that time, she
expressed support for banning gun sales to people on federal "no-fly"
lists.
"I think we've got to be more willing to start imposing these kinds
of gun-safety measures," Clinton said. "I'm certainly going to continue
advocating for them."
Internet searches for the quote found on the image refer only to the image itself — not to any original reporting from the Des Moines Register,
another news outlet or to raw audio or video. Evidence of the quote
does not appear to exist beyond what was originally posted on Tumblr.

And from separate fact checking at Politifact.com (which I also verified by the defacto George Washington Presidential Library at Mount Vernon):

[Face Book Meme, Feb. 16, 2015] Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
— Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media
Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says?
False
Facebook posts
Say George Washington said that "when government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
— Facebook posts on Monday, February 16th, 2015 in a meme on social media
Did George Washington offer support for individual gun rights, as meme says?
By Audrey Bowler on Friday, February 20th, 2015 at 8:56 a.m.
A reader sent us this meme about George Washington and gun rights. Did the first president really say that?
Would George Washington have been an ally to modern-day gun-rights groups? A social-media meme suggests that he would have.
Around the time of Washington’s 282nd birthday, a reader sent us the meme, which includes a painting of Washington and a quote purportedly written or uttered by the nation’s first president: "When government takes away citizens’ right to bear arms it becomes citizens’ duty to take away government’s right to govern."
But are those really Washington’s words?
We contacted Edward Lengel, editor in chief of the Papers of George Washington project at the University of Virginia. He said "there is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said these words, or any like them." Lengel cautioned that it’s impossible to prove a negative, but he added that he’s "as certain as he can be" that the quote did not originate from George Washington.
This is not the first time a similar claim has popped onto our radar screen.
In December 2012, PolitiFact Texas rated False a claim made two days after the Newtown elementary school shooting. When U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, appeared on Fox News Sunday, he was asked why he believed ordinary Americans should be able to buy semi-automatic weapons designed for military use. Gohmert answered in part, "For the reason George Washington said a free people should be an armed people. It ensures against the tyranny of the government."
PolitiFact Texas contacted Gohmert’s office to seek details on the Washington quotation but didn’t hear back.
The closest statement they could find was one Washington made in his first State of the Union address on Jan. 8, 1790: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
The academic consensus is that Washington was referring to a trained militia to defend the new nation, rather than anticipating citizens seeking to head off perceived governmental tyranny.
Ron Chernow, whose Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for biography, told PolitiFact Texas that Washington was "talking about national defense policy, not individuals arming themselves, and the need for national self-sufficiency in creating military supplies."
Some post-Revolutionary lawmakers did expect citizens to own firearms, but Washington does not appear to have been among them, experts said.
"The idea of resistance to tyranny being dependent on a nation of gun-wielding individuals acting at their own behest or even on local initiative would have been anathema to Washington," Lengel told PolitiFact Texas. "Indeed, during the (Revolutionary) war he very frequently lamented the crimes carried out by armed civilians or undisciplined militia against their unarmed neighbors. The solution to these crimes, as he understood it, was to increase the power of the government and the army to prevent and punish them -- not to put more guns in the hands of civilians."
Indeed, during the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, "citizens of Western Pennsylvania rose up to fight a new tax on the whiskey they produced," said Mary Thompson, research historian at Washington’s Virginia home, Mount Vernon. Washington was "concerned that success by the rebels would lead to a diminishment of the central/federal government," and directed state militias to counter the insurrection -- "citizen-soldiers," she said, "acting on behalf of the government against their fellow citizens."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Tonight's debate has something in common with not one, but two, very dissimilar movies, and with a circus. Pop yourself some popcorn, and settle in.

The fantasy animation feature about a circus, "Dumbo the Elephant", was released by Disney Studios in 1941, and included a character with the unfortunate name of Jim Crow (voiced by Cliff Edwards, who earlier did the voice of Jiminy Cricket in the animated classic Pinnochio).

Tonight we can expect some of the circus style entertainment from substance challenged candidate Donald Trump, who has prepared for this evening's debate, much as he prepared for the second debate, by attempting to distract with ugly spectacle, or what one might term a circus.

Tonight's Trump circus will feature a mother who lost her son in the Benghazi attack, who wrongly blames Hillary Clinton. While I feel great sympathy for this woman's loss, I feel far less sympathy that she is attempting to victimize someone else with a false attribution of blame.

The other feature of tonight's Trump Circus will be the half-brother of President Obama, a pathetic individual reminiscent of Billy Carter, President Carter's feckless brother, in his lack of intellect or success. For some inexplicable reason, Malik Obama holds dual Kenyan and US citizenship, and has been voting since 1980. His reasoning for supporting Trump are pretty thin:

“This Trump guy is a really cool guy and I like him because he speaks
from his heart and he is so down to earth,” said the older Obama then.
The wire service reported he held dual citizenship in both the U.S. and
Kenya and that he has voted in American elections since the 1980s.

From other reporting, in the UK, quoting Malik, who admits to 3 current wives. One of the few things Malik has in common with Trump is a lack of monogamy, and alleged domestic violence.:

“There have been 12 wives since my first marriage in 1981, when
Barack was my best man. I have done my best with all of them, along with
the children.”

And: “I don’t beat my wives, as has been alleged. It’s all b******t. I
categorically deny the allegations said to have come from my wife.”

Movie Promo photo
winner 2015 best movie Oscar

And while we are on the subject of bad causes supported by Malik Obama, he apparently knew and liked horrific dictator Moamar Kaddaffi, and lobbied Barack Obama to keep him in power. What Trump has proposed while campaigning and his notion of how government works generally is fascist and authoritarian, which would appeal to someone who likes dictators.

Malik Obama is notoriously pro-Islamic terrorists; sadly part of the incompetence of Trump is his failure to vet his supporters. This certainly argues he is incapable of effective so-called extreme vetting. From Winning Democrats:

Now, there’s a reason President Obama doesn’t associate with his Kenyan
half-brother, and Trump may not be aware of it — Malik Obama supports Hamas,
and was photographed in 2012 wearing one of the terror group’s scarves
with the slogans “Jerusalem is ours – we are coming” and “From the river
to the sea,” a statement that asserts Israel doesn’t exist at all.

As a shorthand for this particular circus exhibit that is Malik Obama, I think of him as "Dumb-bro", dumb for supporting Trump, 'bro' for brother, and like a cartoon elephant for supporting this particular worthless Republican candidate.

The movie Spotlight pertains tonight because more people have come forward to support the stories of the victims of sexual assault by Donald Trump. As with Malik Obama, who erroneously believes Donald Trump is innocent "because the women didn't come forward before", in point of fact as we see in the movie Spotlight, women DID come forward before the election, in some cases long before, as in the case of the law suit filed by Jill Harth, LONG before Trump considered running for office.

Six people have come forward to corroborate the assault reported by People magazine staff writer, Natashay Stoynoff. The quote below is an excerpt from the New York Times regarding the accusation by Stoynoff. It is worth noting that while superficial and shallow, less fact conversant people like Malik Obama focus inaccurately on the timing of events, the New York Times has followed a very similar pattern of seeking corroboration to that followed by the Boston Globe in pursuing their stories, as depicted in the movie "Spotlight". Multi-sourcing, seeking multiple sources for a quote or an event, are standard practice for responsible, ethical, serious journalists.

People published her claims on the same day that The New York Times published an article in which two women described what they said were their own encounters with a sexually aggressive Mr. Trump.

The six people quoted in the latest article
include two editors from People, Mary Green and Liz McNeil; a professor
of journalism, Paul McLaughlin; a co-worker; and two personal friends
of Ms. Stoynoff. All of them said Ms. Stoynoff told them about the
episode around the time it occurred.

“She
wasn’t sure what she should do,” Mr. McLaughlin told the magazine. “I
advised her not to say anything, because I believed Trump would deny it
and try to destroy her.”

The investigation by the Spotlight feature writers at the Boston Globe led to many more accusations, and to many successful law suits against the insurance companies and the Boston diocese for their part in the cover up. Many of those who came forward did so after a long period of being intimidated into silence, as appears to be the case with the Trump accusers. The significance of the New York Times, much like the Boston Globe, in seeking corroboration from people who knew of the assaults and other abuse AT THE TIME THEY OCCURRED, could have significant legal ramifications for the notoriously litigious Donald Trump in the same way the Boston Globe investigation resulted in successful law suits. Trump has already been embarrassingly unsuccessful in attempting to suppress the New York Times, much as the Catholic archdiocese was unsuccessful in stopping the Boston Globe a decade and more earlier. That reporting is potent stuff.

Settlements in the Boston, Massachusetts
suits were estimated to be up to $100 million. In some cases insurance
companies have balked at meeting the cost of large settlements, claiming
the actions were deliberate and not covered by insurance. This was
additional financial damage to the Archdiocese, which already faced the
need to consolidate and close parishes due to changing attendance and
giving patterns. In June 2004, much of the land around the Archdiocese
of Boston headquarters was sold to Boston College, in part to raise money for legal costs associated with scandal in Boston.

Given the success of such corroborated law suits in Boston, it would perhaps be wiser for Donald Trump to start banking his money instead of looking for what he will do next, after losing his bid for the presidency to Hillary Clinton. The information being accumulated was helpful to law suits in Boston and could very well be very helpful in law suits against Trump. I would argue he might not be able to afford his own cable network, given his real estate businesses are doing poorly, particularly his latest venture down the street from the White House, which has an exceptionally high vacancy rate. It's not like he can return to the Apprentice after being replaced by a very successful and far less abusive host, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Trump is pretty much failing on all fronts other than the racist revolutionary bigot militia crowd. As Sarah Palin found to her loss, popularity among the right wing extremists does not translate well into cable tv success.

It would not surprise me to see Trump sued, by multiple accusers, for damages from his misconduct. If that were to be the case, we could expect to see some of that unreleased MGM owned Apprentice footage where crew and guest stars report Trump speaking at length in exactly the same manner he spoke on the Billy Bush bus. At least one of his accusers is from the Apprentice, and others have come forward from that show to corroborate Trump's offensive language and behavior.

It would also not surprise me this evening to see Hillary Clinton speak to the new accusers and the substance of their accusations, as well as the credible reporting done by the Times, People Magazine, and by attorneys like Gloria Allred. Back in 2012, this happened, relating to Allred, who was acting on behalf of a transgender woman competing in one of Trump's terrible pageants.

Trump, forever incapable of turning away from obvious bait, hit back in a nasty call with TMZ.

Before even being asked a question, Trump said:
“I think Gloria would be very very impressed with me, I really do,”
referring to his penis with the subtlety of a train crashing through a
building.

“I think she’d have a
whole brand new image of Donald Trump,” he continued through the
laughter of the TMZ staff. He went on to say that Talackova could
compete if she chose to do so but joked that he might have changed his
mind if he knew that Allred was involved.

Hillary Clinton will be her usual substantive, dignified, poised presidential self tonight. We can comfortably expect that no one invited by Donald Trump will throw her off stride. And we can expect a circus pandering to the gullible, tasteless and stupid to be the response from Donald Trump, as he has already indicated by his guest list. For anyone in doubt, Trump is what conservative losing looks like, and it is ugly, not entertaining.

Please feel free to boo Trump from the comfort of where you choose to watch the debates, but you might want to resist throwing you popcorn at the television or computer screen.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

I predict Trump will lose, lose the debate, lose the election.
I predict Trump will continue to embarrass himself.
I predict Trump will continue his failed attempt to focus NOT on his opponent Hillary but on still-popular former President Bill Clinton and President Obama.
I predict Trump will be consistently, persistently factually inaccurate to an extreme degree.
I predict Trump will continue to claim the election is rigged and to promote conspiracy theories, and to whine whine whine whine whine about how he is a victim. Trump is a victim of no one but himself.

I predict Trump will NOT be focusing on his 'proof' that his accuser of sexual assault in the first class of an airline, reported by the New York Times, was false. His proof turned out to be a proven serial liar and self-professed pedophile pimp from the UK, who does not appear to have been in the US at the time, who has never had the funds to fly first class, and who would have been only 17 or 18 when the attack occurred and who had no legitimate business or other purpose to be in the US at that time.

It is worth noting that President Obama may be the most popular president in history, as he concludes his second term. As of multiple polling from October 6 through October 17th , Real Clear Politics shows him with a polling average of 52.7 approval.

During the previous election, it was harder to get a ticket to an event where Bill Clinton was appearing than it was to get in to see the President. There aren't a lot of current stats for Bill Clinton, but his second term average, per this Gallup poll, was 61% for his second term, with a high point of 73% approval. Polling Report.com had President Bubba's approval rating for early to mid-August of this year at 53%, with his prior recent approvals running 57% to 60%.

So, as a strategy, attacking EITHER Bill Clinton or Barack Obama is not a particularly clever idea, and the notion of attacking Bill's infidelities, from 20 years ago, when there haven't been any new scandals, and when he was hitting some of his highest approval ratings back during the Monica Lewinsky days..........again, not likely to result in helping Trump's declining numbers.

What it is likely to show is that Trump lacks substantive critical thinking and that he is weak on policy positions. He fails fact checks before he gets out of bed every morning, with his twitter wars.
His supporters are leaving him like rats leaving a slowly rather than rapidly sinking ship -- in stead numbers, if not in a rush to depart. His surrogates are meeting hostility because of the rubbish they are presenting. Now the surrogates are trying to criticize the first lady, who is arguably more popular than either president has been. Social media and prominent comedians are mocking Trump more than ever.

New sources continue to emerge - one of the latest being Penn Jillette, who asserts that the way Trump spoke on the Billy Bush bus was the same way he spoke on the set of the apprentice when he knew cameras were rolling, AND that the offensive language was NOT ONLY demeaning to women, but also demeaning to people of color, particularly blacks and Hispanics. The man who was the executive producer of the Apprentice has come out with a scathing repudiation of Trump as a potential president. Trump's replacement on the Apprentice, former Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has similarly repudiated Trump, and announced he will vote for Hillary.

The Mark Burnett statement:

“Given all of the false media reports, I feel compelled to clarify a few
points. I am not now and have never been a supporter of Donald Trump’s
candidacy. I am NOT ‘Pro-Trump.’ Further, my wife and I reject the
hatred, division and misogyny that has been a very unfortunate part of
his campaign.”

The Schwarzenegger statement:

For the first time since I became a citizen in 1983, I will not vote for the Republican candidate for President.
Like many Americans, I have been conflicted by this election – I
still haven’t made up my mind about how exactly I will vote next month. I
have been a proud Republican since I moved to the United States in 1968
and I heard Nixon’s words about getting government off our backs, free
trade, and defending our liberty with a strong military. That day I
joined the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
But as proud as I am to label myself a Republican, there is one label
that I hold above all else – American. So I want to take a moment
today to remind my fellow Republicans that it is not only acceptable to
choose your country over your party – it is your duty.

And finally 700 Evangelical women have signed an open letter denouncing Trump, and taken a goodly swipe at the male Evangelicals who continue to support Trump also, per The Christian Post:

"As Christian women we are appalled by
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's recorded remarks that
disparage women and condone sexual assault," the statement, which was
issued last week, states. "Such language cannot be dismissed as 'locker room talk.' Mr. Trump must offer public contrition that fully acknowledges the seriousness and depravity of his actions."

Another 2,500 students at Liberty University signed an anti-Trump letter, and 75 prominent Evangelical leaders signed a rejection of Trump letter from Change.org:

"Donald Trump's campaign is the most recent and extreme version of a history of racialized politics that has been pursued and about which white evangelicals, in particular, have been silent," the Change.org declaration says. "The silence in previous times has set the environment for what we now see."
"For this reason, we cannot ignore this bigotry, set it aside, just focus on other issues, or forget the things Mr. Trump has consistently said and done," the declaration continues. "No matter what other issues we also care about, we have to make it publicly clear that Mr. Trump's racial and religious bigotry and treatment of women is morally unacceptable to us as evangelical Christians, as we attempt to model Jesus' command to 'love your neighbors as yourself.'"

It is also worth noting that while no major newspaper in the country has endorsed Trump, a number of prominent newspapers are coming out either in support of Hillary, or at the very least against Trump, including the two most prominent Christian newspapers.

THAT will be the context in which Trump does his pathetic little counter-punching shtick on Wednesday night. The one thing you can reliably expect he will NOT do is be either dignified or substantive, or that he will focus on either his real accomplishments which are few, or what he has to offer the nation.

I don't expect we will see anything more of Melania, since her efforts to defend Trump involved claiming he was like a little boy, but it is entirely possible if not before the debate, before too much longer that we will see more Trump scandal emerge, particularly something from the Apprentice of his appearances on Stern's radio show, and with new accusations from women coming forward.

Because the one sure bet is that there is much more scandal to come out from Trump's past and present, not less. And the other sure bet is that he will behave badly, sooner or later, if not during the debate.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Republicans like to claim, and have claimed for years, that fraud is the reason they lose or have lost, some close elections.

When challenged for proof, they have none. When their allegations are investigated, such as in the Coleman - Franken race, they evaporate like smoke.

Even the supposedly most credible case about which they bally-hoo and about which you hear, time and time again is the 1960 Presidential election, specifically supposed over-votes in the Chicago area. Please refer to the attached story from Slate.com:

This story debunks that incredible (totally non-credible) claim. The Illinois election was deeply/broadly investigated and while a tiny number of votes (953) were reversed. That's ENTIRELY within the realm of any re-count. There were NO incidents of fraud which were proved. The allegations were vapor, and were litigated and dismissed through.

On a personal level, my father, a man of extra-ordinary integrity, was involved in Chicago politics in the 1960's. He has said the reason for the large majorities of Kennedy (and others) in the 60's was the effectiveness of the Daley "machine." If you had a problem, you called your precinct captain and it got fixed. Consequently people were very loyal to Dems. My father would never, nor would I, nor anyone I know of, EVER have abetted fraud or put up with it, or left it unreported. That's a profoundly offensive allegation. The evidence doesn't support it, and there's no proof you have that it has occurred since (or then). It's the realm of asking someone to prove something didn't happen when it should be you have to prove something DID happen. When asked to prove THAT, the GOP failed utterly. They litigated and they had no proof.

1. Hillary Clinton is going to win on November 8th. Trump may not have the class to give a concession speech and if he doesn't, Mike Pence will undoubtedly give one (to Pence's credit).

2. Hillary Clinton will almost certainly be a one-term President. You can win an election by focusing on the misconduct of your opponent but when the country is looking for economic fairness and an end to poor pay for long hours, and you yourself are too much on the side of defending the business status-quo, you won't survive. Clinton, and the national Democratic Party leadership, is tone-deaf to feedback from their constituents about how they are hurting, how education is too hard to access or afford, how they aren't given a fair shake by employers. They think this election is about gender-divide. Had Trump not been, well, Trump, Clinton would have lost this election due to that myopia.

3. Donald Trump is hardly the worst thing which the far-right can drum up. He's a personality cult candidate to be sure, but there will be others. I predict Trump isn't going away on 11/9 and worse, someone, perhaps even Trump, will be even more radical, more likely to stoke violence, who will come along in 2020. Our dance with totalitarian, fact-denying, and violence prone candidates is FAR from over.

All of which is sad, and more importantly, all of which should make us alarmed.

Over the weekend, in addition to the arrests of these 3 Christian radical extremists who chose to become domestic terrorists, there was a fire bombing of a Trump political office in North Carolina. That office was also tagged with graffiti telling Republican Nazis to get out.

Let me begin by condemning that event as rigorously as I condemn the 3 domestic terrorists in St. Louis. It was wrong, bad, illegal, and should be punished by a thorough fact finding investigation and what I hope will be a successful prosecution, regardless of the political views of whoever committed that crime. Perpetrators of crimes like this are usually caught.

That said, I will also add that given the prevalence of false flag conspiracy theories of every stripe of insanity on the right, and given the decline in Trump's poll numbers, particularly in a swing state like North Carolina that has a current conservative majority in their state legislature and the executive branch, I am skeptical as to who did this being a liberal extremist, although keeping an open mind.

Looking at who would benefit more from such an act, it strikes me strongly that Trump would. That he needs desperately some way to gain sympathy. Given the sheer volume of acceptance of crazy false flag actions in theory, it would not surprise me at all to see someone on the right actually commit one.

Those are the only people to whom this kind of rubbish thinking makes sense - the extremists, the Trump supporters. They think this way.

It does NOT make sense to me that an independent candidate supporter or a Hillary supporter would do this when Hillary was winning. It does not make sense to me that someone who was serious about committing an act like this would do so comparatively little damage, except by intent.

Further, the timing of this makes sense as well, given the way Trump has been broadly mocked in the media, and approaching the 3rd debate mid week this week. This event gives Trump a whining point (not a talking point) to which he can speak.

Conservatives LOVE LOVE LOVE to play the victim when they are not.
I sincerely hope that the perpetrator of that crime, like the attempted crime in St. Louis have the book thrown at them, regardless of their beliefs or their politics.

But if it turns out to have been a right winger, expect a lot more schadenfreude posts on it from me.

Our first lady did an excellent job of describing the victimization by men like Trump.

PBS Newshour did an excellent job of hosting a discussion on how far we have come and how far we still have to go to achieve anything like gender equality and fair treatment.
Their discussion featured the exemplary social media effort of Kelly Oxford, whom you can read about here.

It's time for the GOP to stop being the party of Grabby Old Pigs. They can't do that while they support and endorse and campaign for and with Donald Trump or those like him who are too widely represented in the party.

On Sunday night during the 2nd Presidential debate, Pig-man DonnyTrump answered a direct question asked by Anderson Cooper, did he DO the things he said on the now infamous recording.

Trump insisted, repeatedly those were "just words", never actions.

THAT appears to be a whopper of a lie, bigger than his big penis bragging, and as big as his big, foul mouth.

As Trump quoted fake emails to a rally, obtained from a highly suspect Russian source, more women have come forward to accuse him of sexual molestation. Two claim he groped and kissed them; multiple contestants from his beauty pageants, both adult and teens who were as young as 15, have accused him of intruding on them naked and of kissing them repeatedly without consent. They describe his behavior as gross and as having made them feel violated.

And what makes this credible is that, per interviews with the BBC and the New York Times, those women told other people about what Trump did to them AT THE TIME. The New York Times has done an excellent job of documenting other women Trump has allegedly harassed and sexually abused, in the manner he himself described

This negates the claims that Trump is making that these very diverse and unconnected women are somehow part of a conspiracy theory to discredit him. Rather Trump discredits himself, not only by what he originally did (allegedly) to these women, but for the way he is treating his accusers. He has been all over the media and rallies and debate claiming that Hillary Clinton was mean to Bill's accusers. Accusers who were apparently liars, if you trust both sworn affidavits in court and the opinion at the time of Donald Trump who referred to one victim as an 'ugly loser' and liar.

When Trump held a press conference before the debate with these alleged Bill Clinton victims, it appeared to be a stratagem on his part, a sort of trap for Hillary. This in spite of the fact that no one is accusing Hillary of being a sexual pervert and predator. Hillary's reaction during the debate appears to have been patient amusement, as if she had expected that tactic. She was clearly prepared, knowing what video existed of Trump being abusive of those accusers. Too bad Trump apparently has such a poor memory that he did not remember, and such a deficient staff that they did not think to check his past statements.

That Trump "trap" seems only to have caught Trump himself. This does not argue well for a leader who hopes to outmaneuver foreign enemies, much less dazzle and win against the domestic opposition he faces.

Trump claims he is a victim, something that I find the most annoying aspect of conservatives generally - claiming they are a victim when they are far from it, and when too often they are the victimizers.

Trump has threatened to respond to any new people coming forward or additional recordings of his actual words and actions by digging up more dirt on Bill Clinton. Apparently he doesn't get it that Bill Clinton is NOT running for president NOW, that Bill Clinton has kept his parts appropriately in his pants and his hands in his pockets for the past nearly 20 years, UNLIKE Trump. And he has failed to notice that Bill was a popular president at the time and is still popular now, arguably more popular than Hillary (whether that is fair or not).

I find it sad and demonstrating a lack of insight that attacking the woman done wrong is a bad strategy to win women, as is supporting women like Monica Lewinsky who admitted she sought to be home wrecker or 'the other woman'. Bill as the person who was older and who held the power as an employer should have never succumbed to her seduction, but she was very clear that she was the one who initiated seduction, not Bill; a (pardon the pun) seminal fact that gets lost in the mist of history.

If Donny the Pig Trump thinks he is going to be digging up dirt he should put down his shovel; the only thing he is digging is a deeper hole for himself and his campaign.

Trump should reconsider courting the religious right, while spending so much more time cultivating the seven deadly sins, especially lust, avarice and gluttony, topped with a heaping helping of hypocrisy on his bad head hair.

The following gargoyle images are from the wall of New College, Oxford, courtesy of thecrypt.net.; they represent gluttony, lust and greed. I should probably add envy, since Trump clearly envies both accomplishments he doesn't have, and power he will never get. And maybe one for boasting, since that is most of what Trump does, in lieu of speaking substance. All of them in their own way resemble jowly, baggy-eyed, debauched looking, screaming Donald Trump, except for not being orange, and we never see Donald Trump reading a book (or writing his own, as Hillary has done).

Trump-big-mouth-tiny-hands puppet Scottie Nell Hughes and other surrogates and supporters have been trying to scapegoat the popular work of fiction, 50 Shades of Gray to excuse Trump's bad behavior. If one follows the reasoning, such as it is, of these surrogates, those who enjoy the occasional Agatha Christie novel, are pro-murder.

Shades author EL James has strongly repudiated Trump in the most unambiguous terms.
From Entertainment:

In other news, the sexploitation table has been turned on Trump with the publication of a work of erotic fiction featuring the (alleged) sexual predator turned nominee. Apparently it is, ahem, YUUUUGE,

( actually, THIS big -> )

the success of the story that is. This is not entirely new ground; in the 2008 election cycle, following rumors of a Sarah Palin sex tape, there were xxx rated porn parodies.

Once again, and never more so than 2016, fact is stranger than really strange fiction.

From the Telegraph, UK comes this gem from January of this year, possibly the funniest tangent of the 2016 election cycle:

The billionaire property magnate and Republican front-runner is
described with unusual intimacy in Trump Temptations: The Billionaire
& The Bellboy, a 10-page novel by Elijah Daniel, a 22-year-old
comedian from Los Angeles, that imagines a relationship between Mr Trump
and an employee at his hotel in Hong Kong

Thereafter, Mr Trump's appeal is described in glowing terms that might not necessarily chime with the feelings of the many supporters who have attended his campaign rallies.

"My loins trembled as the scent of toupee adhesive and spray tan swept through my nasal cavity," the smitten narrator recounts. "It was him. It was Donald! He stood there in front of me, like a tall stallion. With his oily orange skin glistening in the sunlight as if he were a soggy cheeto [sic], his hair unkept and messy, like a gorgeous rat's nest. He was beautiful."

It remains to be seen whether the novel is to Mr Trump's taste but it has been given unanimous five-star reviews by 181 customers on Amazon.com's website.

... "After reading this sensual and tawdry account of Mr Trump's
escapades in Hong Kong, I'm convinced he can make America great again
one bellboy at a time," one reviewer wrote, referring to Mr Trump's own
recent book, Crippled America: Make America Great Again.

I can't resist this temptation. Perhaps now is time to revive the earlier photo trend, cat Trump look a likes:

Trump is clearly changing what he says to lie to his potential voters.

This matters when he is caught on a hot mic in 2005, and it matters when he is suddenly accusing Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct that he called lies, and abused the alleged victims as losers back in 1998.
The word for this is expediency. The other word for this is LYING.

NOTHING has changed since 1998; there is no new evidence to support an accusation.

The ONLY thing that has changed is it is now expedient for Trump to lie, to lie lie lie lie.

And courtesy of the way-back machine known as the internet, he is busted busted busted busted busted.

Liars are losers. Trump is a lying loser. And his base of deplorables who are making excuses for him deserve to lose; the party which embraced the deplorables deserves to disappear into the dustbin of history.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

I got the right answer, without a calculator, or counting on my fingers or toes.
Big business tycoon? Really? This is at best a 4th grade question. Is Trump smarter than a 4th grader? Are his much-vaunted kids?
Maybe Hillary was wrong to be as impressed with them as she claims to be.

Monday, October 10, 2016

It is impossible to avoid noticing that the same people who embrace Rush
Limbaugh's offensive ideas, especially those insulting to women, are the
people who are the base for Donald Trump.Even Republican women are leaving Trump in droves, as are independents, in the wake of the original scandal and continuing scandals. As with hating people of color, and people of diverse national origins (aka immigrants) or diverse religious beliefs, the only demographic supporting the GOP this election cycle are old white men - the flabby and crabby old white men, like Trump, like the listeners to viagra-swilling sex-tourist and much-married pig, Rush Limp-dick.

Thanks to the effectiveness of the liberal boycott against Rush
Limbaugh over his comments regarding Sandra Fluke, in conjunction with the predatory vulture capitalism of Mitt
Romney's company Bain Capital, Rush Limbaugh no longer has such a large
number of radio stations to broadcast his vile programming, and as a
result, he is no longer the king maker he has been in past elections.
These are people who are misogynists, pure and simple; they justify it
by saying they are against political correctness, but the reality is
they want to be able to believe and say hateful things without criticism
or impediment. These are the "good" hard-righties, the women haters,
the racist bigots, the anti-LGBT, the Islamophobes, the Obama haters,
and many are also Anti-Semitic. Their classic outsider group to hate are
immigrants, of any stripe. And the Clinton haters.

They
believe it is their right to oppress and punish others for
failing to conform to their narrow and factually inaccurate beliefs,
which is a key part of the definition of authoritarianism. As a group,
they object when government - which becomes to them 'big government'
interferes with treating people badly who belong to what they see as the
nonconforming 'other' - women who are not appropriately subordinate,
people of color, LGBT, and anyone who differs from their religious
beliefs, no matter how odd or extreme or hateful.

Many
of them are employed, but not generally at high paying jobs; many of
them believe they must be 'good' people because they belong to a toxic
version of Christianity that is part superstition combined with a very
large dollop of authoritarianism that is conservative Evangelicals. Few
of them are well educated with a well rounded background.

Rush
Limbaugh has a lot in common with the person Donald Trump really is,
the persona he pushes to his base.
If you look at what Trump says about women - calling them dogs and pigs; predicating women's role in society, especially employment on their attractiveness rather than ability; defending and excusing sexual harassment; selectively fat shaming (but never applying the same standards to men, least of all themselves); and making a range of derogatory comments about women relating to sexuality or reproduction. Presumably ALL of these were excused by Limp-bow in the same way as Trump, or the bozos at Faux News -- as entertainment, which somehow is excepted from normal standards of fact or decency.

Here are a few quotes from Rush, which I will contrast with a similar
number of quotes from Drumpf. H/t to Addicting info for the unpleasant
job of collecting these (and more). See if you recognize the
similarities.
In no particular order, 12 out of the 35 offensive statements were about
women, more than any other category of comments.

“Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.”
~Rush Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh Show, August 12, 2005

“Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is also a White House dog?”
~Rush Limbaugh, while holding up a photograph of 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton on his 1993 television show

“They’re out there protesting what they actually wish would happen to them sometimes.”
~Rush Limbaugh, on women who protest against sexual harassment, The Rush Limbaugh Show, April 26, 2004

“Women should not be allowed on juries where the accused is a stud.”
~Rush Limbaugh, 1994 List of 35 Undeniable Truths

“It doesn’t look like Michelle Obama follows her own nutritionary
dietary advice. And then we hear that she’s out eating ribs at 1500
calories a serving with 141 grams of fat … No, I’m trying to say that
our first lady does not project the image of women that you might see on
the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue or of a woman Alex
Rodriguez might date every six months or what have you.”
~Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 21, 2011

“These were highly civil comments for crying out loud. I mean,
people are going nuts. USA Today, the Politico. And some people were
suggesting that my comments were below the belt. Well, take a look at
some pictures. Given where she wears her belts. I mean, she wears them
high up there around the bust line. Isn’t just about everything about
her below the belt when you look at the fashion sense she has?”
~Rush Limbaugh, after being criticized for making derogatory comments
about First Lady Michelle Obama’s weight, Feb. 22, 2011

“I’m a huge supporter of women. What I’m not is a supporter of
liberalism. Feminism is what I oppose. Feminism has led women astray. I
love the women’s movement — especially when walking behind it.”
~Rush Limbaugh, responding to criticism that he is sexist and defending
his selection as one of the judges at the 2010 Miss America Pageant,
“Fox News’ Fox & Friends,” February 3, 2010

“We’re not sexists, we’re chauvinists — we’re male chauvinist pigs,
and we’re happy to be because we think that’s what men were destined to
be. We think that’s what women want.”
~Rush Limbaugh, claiming that women want men to be assholes, April 15,
2004

“Given the National Organization for Women’s membership and
proclivities, it’s no wonder that people now view the NOW gang as being
obsessed with only two issues: abortion rights and lesbian rights.

“What is it with all of these young, single white women? Overeducated- doesn’t mean intelligent.”
~Rush Limbaugh, insulting educated women, March 6, 2012

[T]he nags … the national association of gals, that’s our pet name
for the NOW gang … the nags are a bunch of whores to liberalism.
~Rush Limbaugh, another attack on women, October 14, 2010

“I think this reason why girls don’t do well on multiple choice
tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis,
Adam and Eve. God said, ‘All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple
orgasms, what’s it going to be?’ We all know what was chosen.”
~Rush Limbaugh, making another degrading comment about women, February
23, 1994

Turning up the heat on right wing lies

Opinions

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

― Isaac Asimov, "A Cult of Ignorance," Newsweek (Jan. 1980)

We stand with PP

past wisdom

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."Billy Graham - Parade (1 February 1981)

An astute observation from Bertrand Russell

"Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones."

Penigma is pro-feminism, pro-thought

Ignorance is a choice

Just Do it!

Search This Blog

Follow by Email

You Are Here

Rules

Citing factual sources is encouraged, and critical reasoning is prized here. Spam comments will be removed. Harassment, intimidation, or interference will not be tolerated.

2. Trolls and flamers will be warned; if they continue they will be banned.

Discourteous behavior discourages discussion and debate, and is contrary to sharing the widest possible range of view points.

3. We will try to be scrupulous in giving credit and proper attribution, and also in disclosing associations that are a potential bias.

We ask that you do so as well.

4. Courtesy is expected and required.

Penigma is NOT an 'adults only' blog. We deal with a range of subjects that include those which are controversial, and are of interest to mature individuals rather than young children.

We intend this blog to be suitable for readers under the age of 18. Therefore, a condition of participating here is that our comments be self-edited, avoiding obscenities or similarly vulgar, abusive, threatening, insulting, or otherwise objectionable language when expressing opinions. Substantive points can be made without it.

5. We welcome suggestions and corrections, either through our comment option, or by use of the above contact email.

This is a moderated blog; there may be some delay between writing a comment and when it is posted by an administrator. We will attempt to be as prompt as possible, but ask your patience.

We hope that you enjoy reading Penigma, and encourage you to share your thoughts with us and the Penigma readers in turn, even if you disagree with us. _________________

The opinions expressed on this web log are the personal opinions of the authors. No reproduction or re-use of these personal works or articles published on Penigma.blogspot.com is permitted without the expressed written consent of the author; they are intellectual property, and so is this blog.

No rights of privacy or ownership by the commenter exists over comments. Once they are submitted to Penigma they become an integral part of the Penigma content and become part of our intellectual property. _________